Bulletin of Regional Natural History (BORNH) Vol.1, no.1, 2021 ISSN 2724-4393 An ethnobotanical survey of wild edible plants of Campania (Italy) Antonino De Natale, Bruno Menale, Serena Di Lecce and Antonino Pollio* DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/2724-4393/7584 *Correspondence: Abstract [email protected] A survey of the knowledge on edible wild plants in Campania https://orcid.org/ (Italy) is presented. The checklist is based not only on literature 0000-0003-3018-7921 data but also on unpublished results coming from archives of Affiliations: Dipartimento di Biologia, the authors. 639 records of alimentary uses related to 198 taxa Università Federico II di are listed. Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, Brassicaceae and Rosaceae Napoli, Complesso are the most represented families. The predominant biological Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia 26, 0126, forms are Hemycriptophytes, Terophytes and Phanerophytes. Naples, Italy The parts of plant used as food mainly include leaves and Conflict of Interest:The aerial parts, followed by flowers, fruits and seeds, whereas authors declare that they have roots and other underground parts are less frequently used. no conflict of interest. Financial Disclosure Many species are consumed in salads or soups and served in Statement: The Authors mixtures. The alimentary uses of most species are widespread declare that no specific in Campania, but the uses of 28 species are strictly linked to funding was received for this work. limited territories. Accepted: 30 November 2020 Keyword: Ethnobotany, Campania, edible wild plants This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License " Riassunto Viene presentata una rassegna delle conoscenze sulle piante selvatiche commestibili in Campania (Italia). La checklist non si basa solo su dati di letteratura ma anche su risultati inediti provenienti dagli archivi degli autori. Sono stati elencati 639 record di usi alimentari relativi a 198 taxa. Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, Brassicaceae e Rosaceae sono le famiglie più rappresentate. Le forme biologiche predominanti sono: Emicriptofite, Terofite e Fanerofite. Le parti delle piante utilizzate come cibo sono principalmente foglie e parti aeree delle piante, seguite da fiori, frutti e semi, mentre radici e altre parti sotterranee sono usate meno frequentemente. Molte specie si consumano in BORNH !45 Bulletin of Regional Natural History (BORNH) Vol.1, no.1, 2021 ISSN 2724-4393 insalate o zuppe e si usano in combinazione con altre. La maggior parte delle specie sono adoperate in tutto il territorio Campano, ma gli usi di 28 specie sono strettamente legati a territori circoscritti. Parole chiave: Etnobotanica, Campania, piante selvatiche commestibili How to cite A. De Natale, B. Menale, S. Di Lecce & Antonino Pollio (2021). An ethnobotanical survey of wild edible plants of Campania (Italy). Bulletin of Regional Natural History (BORNH), Bollettino della Società dei Naturalisti in Napoli. Vol.1, no.1, pp. 45-110. ISSN 2724-4393. Introduction herbaceous species are used as food The use of edible wild plants in southern (Biscotti et al. 2018), whereas in Sicily about Europe is still lively, albeit on decline. 300 native edible wild plants were identified Throughout the Mediterranean region these in a recent study, based on a review of the plants played a role in the surviving strategy extant literature and on recent field of rural communities for centuries, and there investigations (Pasta et al. 2020). is a diffused awareness that such a heritage As far as concerns the Campania Region, should be preserved as it represents a numerous ethnobotanical reports have been source of untapped information about published in the last decades, frequently numerous neglected species (Vanzani et al. including information on local uses of edible 2011). wild plants. The present study provides the Wild food plants differ among regions of the first compilation of ethnobotanical data Mediterranean basin. Yet, as a general rule, collected in this territory, aiming to delineate wild greens are largely consumed, having a a comprehensive picture of the geographical seasonal usage (Hadjichambis et al. 2008). distribution of these data. This contribution Often, edible wild plants are weeds, could promote future field investigation, considered noxious to crop cultivation. For focusing the attention on the Campanian this reason, they are controlled by using territories where information on edible wild herbicides and mechanical eradication, even plants is scanty or worse lacking. though weeds also play important ecological roles, as sources of biodiversity, as key Material and Methods components of seminatural edge habitats The list of the edible wild plants of and preventing soil erosion (Turner et al. Campania was based on a critical review of 2011). The first report on Italian wild edible recent literature available on this topic, plants dates back to 1980s (Aliotta 1987). namely: De Natale et al. (2009); De Natale Recent research confirms that in Italy, and and Pollio (2007); De Rosa et al. (2008); Di particularly in southern regions, numerous Novella et al. (2012); Guarino et al. (2008); La wild edible species are still commonly Palometa and Grieco (2003); Mautone et al. consumed. In Apulia more than 220 wild (2019); Menale et al. (2016); Menale and BORNH !46 Bulletin of Regional Natural History (BORNH) Vol.1, no.1, 2021 ISSN 2724-4393 Muoio (2014); Motti et al. (2009); Motti and family, as reported by Pignatti (2017-2018). Motti (2017); Salerno and Guarrera (2008); Local names, Province, Locality, Part of the Savo et al. (2015); Savo et al. (2019); Scherrer plant used, and Food uses are the other et al. (2015). fields included in the check list, that provide The recent ethnobotanical bibliography was an updated information about the uses of integrated with information coming from the edible wild plants in Campania. Life form archives of Antonino De Natale (ADN) and and chorotypes were recorded in keeping Bruno Menale (BM), that further includes with Pignatti (1982). The taxa are listed in unpublished data (u.d.), collected during alphabetical order according to their fieldworks carried out in different areas of scientific name. the Campania region. As basic references from neighboring regions we considered: Results Biscotti et al. (2018), for Apulia; Menale et al. In the Supplementary Table S1 we list 639 (2006), for Molise; Guarrera et al. (2006), for records of alimentary uses, that are related to Basilicata; Passalacqua et al. (2006), Nebel et 198 different taxa. The most represented al. (2006), for Calabria; Pasta et al. (2020), for families are Asteraceae (25.2%), Lamiaceae Sicily. (9.4%), Brassicaceae (7.9%) and Rosaceae The checklist of edible wild plants reports for (6.4%) (Fig. 1). Figure 1: Families of food plants used in Campania. The families with a score < 2% are not represented in the figure. each taxon the scientific name and the plant BORNH !47 Bulletin of Regional Natural History (BORNH) Vol.1, no.1, 2021 ISSN 2724-4393 The biological spectrum highlights a represent some 37% of the taxa included in predominance of Hemicryptophytes, the checklist, yet only 2.48 % are endemic to followed by Terophytes and Phanerophytes Campania (Fig. 3). (Fig. 2), whereas the chorological spectrum The parts of plant most frequently used are Figure 2: Frequency of growth forms among Campanian food plants expressed as percentage (Ch = Chamaephytes, G = Geophytes, H = Hemicryptophytes, P = Phanerophytes, T = Therophytes). shows the prevalence of Euroasiatic (22.77%) leaves and Cosmopolitan (21.29%) taxa, that and tender twigs, followed by seeds, fruits account for almost half of the species overall. and flowers. The hypogean organs, either Steno- and Euri-mediterranean taxa roots or bulbs are less represented. On a BORNH !48 Figure 3: Chorological distribution of food plants in Campania. Bulletin of Regional Natural History (BORNH) Vol.1, no.1, 2021 ISSN 2724-4393 gastronomic level, plants are mainly uses common to different territory of the consumed in salads or soups, frequently region account for more than 50% of the mixing more species (as in the case of the total, but for 26 plants (28%) an alimentary very frequently cited “minestra maritata”, or use was reported only for small territories “minestra terrana”). Plants and gastronomic (Table 1). Table 1: Edible wild plants whose use was reported only for small territories. Species / Family Locality Anthemis arvensis L. s.l. Montecorvino Rovella Asphodeline liburnica (Scop.) Rchb. Montecorvino Rovella Bituminaria bituminosa (L.) Stirt. Ischia Cardamine hirsuta L. Montecorvino Rovella Carlina acanthifolia All. subsp. acanthifolia All. Sanza Centaurea calcitrapa L. Baselice, S. Giorgio la Molara Roccabascerana Colchicum autumnale L. Montecorvino Rovella Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link subsp. scoparius Montecorvino Rovella Equisetum telmateia Ehrh. Castel San Lorenzo Ficaria verna Huds. Montecorvino Rovella Fraxinus ornus L. Cava de' Tirreni Fumaria officinalis L. s.l. Montecorvino Rovella Lamium purpureum L. Cirignano Limbarda crithmoides (L.) Dumort. s.l. Ascea Mentha aquatica L. s.l. Montecorvino Rovella Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn s.l. Monti Picentini Regional Park Quercus ilex L. Acerra, Aversa Rumex acetosa All. San Mauro Cilento Sanguisorba officinalis L. Cava de’ Tirreni Senecio vulgaris L. s.l. Ischia Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garcke s.l. Montecorvino Rovella Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop. Acerra Sixalix atropurpurea (L.) Greuter et Burdet Montecorvino Rovella Taxus baccata L. Monti Picentini